Mayor Rob Ford insisted in open court on Wednesday that he does not believe he broke provincial law when he voted to reverse a council order that he reimburse donations to his private football foundation, in a case that lawyer Clayton Ruby said centres on the chief magistrate’s “integrity.”

“I define a conflict of interest if it’s both financially beneficial to the city and financially beneficial to myself,” Mr. Ford told his lawyer Alan Lenczner in a packed courtroom at 361 University Avenue, that included his brother Councillor Doug Ford, city hall activists and students.

“There is no interest for the city. This is just my personal issue.”

Mr. Ford is answering to allegations he broke the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act when he voted and spoke about a matter that had to do with reimbursing $3,150 in donations to the Rob Ford Football Foundation. The city’s integrity commissioner ruled the donations were obtained improperly from lobbyists and one corporation that had dealings with the city. Council had demanded he pay the money back in 2010. Having not done so, the city’s integrity commissioner was before city council on Feb. 7 asking for proof of payment.

Related

Court on Wednesday watched a video of the Feb. 7 debate in which the mayor spoke passionately about the charity that raises money to buy football equipment for youth who can’t afford it, and that it did not make sense to ask him to pay back money that he does not see a cent of.

“Mayor Ford wants this hearing to be about kids and the good work he does” with his football program, Mr. Ruby told Justice Charles Hackland in opening remarks.

“That is not what this hearing is about… The issue is the integrity of what Mayor Ford did.”

In his opening statements, Mr. Lenczner, Mr. Ford’s lawyer, argued the mayor had a right to get up and defend himself on a matter that had to do with him breaching the code of conduct.

“This is not a conflict, in the proper term, as it’s understand with a piece of city business. There is no lack of transparency, which is what the municipal conflict of interest is all about,” said Mr. Lenczner.

Mr. Ruby left it to Justice Hackland to decide “whether it is an honest and good faith belief, or just a smoke screen for determined defiance of the integrity commissioner’s continuing critical examination of [the mayor’s] affairs.”

If found guilty of breaching the act, the judge must boot the mayor out of office, unless he believes he violated the act inadvertently, through an error in judgement or deems the money insignificant.

Though the proceedings could see the mayor ousted from his position, Councillor Doug Ford was candid yesterday about his contempt for the case against his brother.

“All the shenanigans, all the backroom deals [at city hall] for years after years and they are going to go after a guy who donates money to needy kids in priority neighbourhoods? It’s a joke,” he said on Tuesday.

“It wasn’t about a city contract. It wasn’t about city money. This is an individual supporting kids, they will twist it any way they can,” said Councillor Ford, who accused the left of “chasing him down” with a legal fight.

Councillor Ford said Torontonians should be more worried about sole-sourced deals — he listed the renovation of Nathan Phillips Square and the new streetcar purchase as two examples — over what his brother voted and spoke to on Feb. 7. The city said the Nathan Phillips Square contract was not sole sourced.

But Councillor Adam Vaughan, a critic of the mayor’s, says the case is about more than the mayor’s efforts with disadvantaged youth.

“The football program, quite frankly, is a red herring. It gives him great cover to do this,” said Mr. Vaughan, arguing that the mayor uses the foundation to advance his reputation and political career.

“It’s a serious issue, it should be in front of the court,” he said. “Otherwise what’s to stop anybody starting a foundation for the arts, or cricket or theatre and use that money to help build a mayoralty campaign.”